Tort Reform...
Oregon Action opposes proposed tort reform legislation because these proposals are designed to restrict consumer rights while doing nothing about corporate irresponsibility, medical malpractice or even about lowering insurance costs.


Conventional Wisdom Isn't
Just about everything "everybody knows" about tort reform, medical malpractice and the explosion of litigation by trial lawyers is wrong. This was highlighted in 2003 when the Florida Senate took the extraordinary step of requiring lobbyists testifying on a medical malpractice bill to give their testimony under oath.

Suddenly insurance industry lobbyists were admitting that they were not paying out extraordinary settlements, that litigation was not exploding and that malpractice claims had nothing to do with increasing malpractice insurance costs.

The President of the Florida Medical Association had to admit there was no doctor shortage and that there were actually more doctors practicing than a decade ago and explain why she sent out press releases blaming "frivolous lawsuits" when under oath she said she had no information on frivolous lawsuits in Florida. She also admitted that the FMA referred doctors to a malpractice insurer that paid 10% of the premiums to the FMA in an arrangement that would be called a kickback and a conflict of interest under most definitions of the terms.

Legislators were stunned and began to wonder if they should always require testimony to be given under oath. Of course, lobbyists suggested that would slow down the legislative process since swearing an oath to tell the truth takes so much time.

California recently tried the same tactic during a special session on worker's compensation reform and the California Manufacturing & Technology Association, which had been leading the campaign for changes in worker's compensation to reduce costs to business, actually refused to testify if they would be required to do so under oath. They said they could not guarantee the truth or accuracy of their representative's claims.

Perhaps if we always required testimony under oath, we might have better policy. Instead, we have anti-consumer tort reform proposals that limit consumers' right to sue — and this entire push is based on a series of myths and deceptions pushed by trade associations and industry lobbyists who are clearly not under oath.

Updated February 25, 2007